THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRAGONFLIES OF THE ... · Dragonfly diversity is greatest in the northern parts of the region as both Mediterranean and more boreal species can be found

THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRAGONFLIES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN BASINCompiled by Elisa Riservato, Jean-Pierre Boudot, Sonia Ferreira, Miloš Jović, Vincent J. Kalkman, Wolfgang Schneider, Boudjéma Samraoui and Annabelle Cuttelod

ME

DIT

ER

RA

NE

AN

The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM - Regional Assessment

The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM - Regional Assessment

THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRAGONFLIES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN BASINCompiled by Elisa Riservato, Jean-Pierre Boudot, Sonia Ferreira, Miloš Jović, Vincent J. Kalkman, Wolfgang Schneider, Boudjéma Samraoui and Annabelle Cuttelod

ii iii

Compiled by:

Elisa Riservato Via Maestra 81 T.Q., Novara 28100 (Italy)

Jean-Pierre Boudot LIMOS, UMR 7137 CNRS – Universités de Nancy, Faculté des Sciences, B.P. 70239, 54506 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex (France)

Sonia Ferreira CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Rewcursos Genèticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão (Portugal)

Miloš Jović Natural History Museum, Njegoševa 51, 11000 Belgrade (Serbia)

Vincent J. Kalkman European Invertebrate Survey – Nederland, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum – Naturalis, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden (Netherlands)

Wolfgang Schneider Senckenberg Research Institute, Entomology II, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt (Germany)

Boudjéma Samraoui Laboratoire de Recherche et de Conservation des Zones Humides, Biology Department, University of Guelfa, Guelfa (Algeria)

Annabelle Cuttelod IUCN-Med – C/ Marie Curie 22, 29590 Campanillas, Malaga (Spain)

Published by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating organizations, concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organizations.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain.Copyright: © 2009 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.Red List logo: © 2008.Citation: Riservato, E. et al. (2009). The Status and Distribution of Dragonflies of the Mediterranean Basin. Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain: IUCN. vii + 33 pp.ISBN: 978-2-8317-1161-4Cover design by: Chadi Abi Faraj, IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation.Cover photo: Moorland hawker (Aeshna juncea) © Fabio Pupin.Back cover photo: Beautiful demoiselle (Calopteryx virgo meridionalis) © Jean Pierre Boudot.

All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder (see individual captions for details). Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder.

Layout by: Chadi Abi Faraj.Produced by: IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation.Printed by: Solprint, Mijas (Spain).Available from: IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation

C/ Marie Curie 22 29590 Campanillas, Malaga, Spain. Tel: +34 952 028430 Fax: +34 952 028145 or IUCN Publications Services, www.iucn.org/publications A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.

The text of this book is printed on 115 gsm environmentally-friendly paper.

ii iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... v

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... vi

1. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 An introduction to damselflies and dragonflies ................................................... 1 1.2 The Mediterranean .............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Mediterranean wetlands .............................................................................................. 4 1.4 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species ................................................................. 4 1.5 Assessment objectives .............................................................................................. 5

2. Assessment methodology ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Definition of the Mediterranean Basin for the assessment ..................................... 6 2.2 Regional and global assessment ................................................................................ 6 2.3 Training workshop and preliminary assessments ................................................... 6 2.4 Review Workshop .............................................................................................. 7 2.5 Post-workshop editing .............................................................................................. 7 2.6 Database and distribution atlas of Mediterranean dragonflies ..................................... 7

3. Results and discussion ........................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Conservation status .............................................................................................. 9 3.2 Patterns of species richness ................................................................................ 13 3.2.1 Species richness .............................................................................................. 13 3.2.2 Distribution of endemic species richness ................................................... 13 3.2.3 Distribution of threatened species richness ................................................... 15 3.3 Major threats ............................................................................................................. 16

4. Recommendations for priority conservation measures ................................................................. 17 4.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Regional action ............................................................................................................. 17 4.3 Dragonflies as tools: databases and monitoring ................................................... 19

5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 21

References ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1 – Red List status of Mediterranean dragonflies ................................................................. 23Appendix 2 – Example of species summary and distribution map ................................................... 27Appendix 3 – Summary of the IUCN’s Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1 ...................... 32

iv v

iv v

Acknowledgements

Assessing species for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species relies on the willingness of scientists to contribute and pool their collective knowledge in order to produce the most reliable estimates regarding the status of species. Without their enthusiastic commitment to species conservation, this kind of regional overview would not be possible.

The coordination of the Mediterranean Red Lists is carried out by Annabelle Cuttelod from the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation (IUCN-Med). We would like to express our particular gratitude to Sandra Simoes, Nieves Garcia and Dania Abdul Malak for their support in this project, in particular for organizing the training and evaluation workshops, their logistical, technical, and administrative help, as well as for reviewing this document and ensuring that the whole project ran smoothly. Training on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, as well as the facilitation in the evaluation workshop and technical support, has been provided by the IUCN Species Programme, in particular David Allen, Will Darwall, Anna McIvor, Caroline Pollock, Kevin Smith and Helen Temple. Vineet Katariya and Susannah Ohanlon have provided the GIS maps and analysis for this publication. Jean-Christophe Vié, Jamie Skinner and

Will Darwall have developed the different aspects of this project and promoted it constantly, and therefore we are very grateful to them. We received extensive expert advice and assistance from IUCN/SSC Dragonfly Specialist Group.

We would also take this opportunity to thank the IUCN Moroccan National Committee, in particular Brahim Haddane, for the logistics of the training workshop held in Rabat (Morrocco), as well as the Research Centre for Biodiversity and Genetic Resources of Porto University (CIBIO-UP) who provided the venue and logistics for the evaluation workshop, and the University of Porto and the municipality of Vila do Conde who supported it.

This work was funded by the European Union under grant contract: EuropeAid/ENV/2004-81917, the MAVA Foundation, and the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID) through the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Participants of the IUCN Freshwater Biodiversity Red List Evaluation Workshop, October 2007, Porto (Portugal). Photo: ©Abdelhamid Azeroual.

vi vii

Executive Summary

Aim

This report contains a review of the conservation status of 165 Mediterranean species of dragonflies occurring in the Mediterranean basin, according to the IUCN regional Red Listing criteria. It identifies species that are threatened with extinction at regional level so that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status.

Scope

The geographical scope of this report is the Mediterranean region in terms of freshwater hydrosystems, defined by identifying all catchments of rivers flowing into the Mediterranean Sea as well as in the adjacent Atlantic waters of Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

Status assessment

The status of all species was assessed using the IUCN Red List Criteria (IUCN 2001), which are the world’s most widely accepted system for measuring extinction risk. All assessments followed the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (IUCN 2003). The assessments were peer-reviewed by other experts during a workshop and through correspondence with relevant experts.

Results

Almost a fifth (19%) of the dragonfly species occurring in the Mediterranean region are threatened and a further 16% are Near Threatened. Four species (2%), Agriocnemis exilis*, Ceriagrion glabrum, Rhyothemis semihyalina and Phyllomacromia africana are listed as Regionally Extinct.

Threatened dragonflies are found all over the Mediterranean region. However, some areas have a particular high concentration of threatened species: the most notable are the southern Balkans, north-eastern Algeria and the Levant with the adjacent southern parts of Turkey.

Fourteen percent of the species in the Mediterranean Basin are endemic, (9 of these are threatened and 5 Near Threatened). This highlights the responsibility that the Mediterranean countries have to protect the global populations of these species. The highest number of endemics are found in the Maghreb and in the Levant whereas the smaller numbers are found in the southern Balkans, Crete and the Western Mediterranean.

Dragonfly diversity is greatest in the northern parts of the region as both Mediterranean and more boreal species can be found in the same area. Italy has the highest number of species due to its particular shape allowing the presence of North African species in the south and alpine species in the north. Other species rich areas are found in France, the Balkans region, Greece, Tunisia and Turkey. Habitat destruction, degradation, pollution and mismanagement of water bodies are significant threats to dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin. In recent years it has become clear that Climate Change will turn out to be one of the most important threats to dragonflies in the Mediterranean. Increased water demand together with a lower level of precipitation will result in the desiccation of brooks, a habitat on which many of the endemics are dependent.

* The species Agriocnemis exilis was recently recorded during the last IUCN African Dragonfly workshop (April 2009) and is in the process of being re-categorized.

vi vii

Conclusions

Threatened dragonflies in the Mediterranean �Basin require urgent action to improve their statusWhile some species are already receiving some conservation attention thanks to international laws (e.g. the European Habitat Directive), others are not. The priorities identified in this study include addressing the threats, such as the destruction and degradation of freshwater habitats, and the need to improve monitoring, surveys and studies in some important areas of the Mediterranean Basin.

Regional action is urgently needed �This report shows where the highest diversity, the highest level of endemism, and the highest

portion of threatened dragonflies are found within the Mediterranean region. Based on this, five areas of high conservation concern were selected (Maghreb, The Levant, Crete, Southern Balkans and Western Mediterranean). These areas are discussed separately, and for each one, conservation actions are prioritized.

A sustained investment in the conservation and �monitoring of species sites and landscapes is needed for all Mediterranean countriesTo ensure that Mediterranean species are secure in the long term, this needs to be combined with the political will to integrate biodiversity conservation into all policy sectors.

The moorland hawker (Aeshna juncea) copulating (Least Concern). This is a widespread species, present in central and northern areas of Europe. In the Mediterranean area its range is restricted to higher altitudes and mountain areas. It is associated to all kinds of standing water at higher altitudes and latitudes. At present no threats are known for this species, but in the future global warming might represent a major threat, possibly leading to the loss of species at the limit of its range area (e.g., Portugal). Conservation of breeding habitats is required, especially in isolated areas of its range. Photo: © Jean-Pierre Boudot.

1 2

1.1 An introduction to damselflies and dragonflies

Dragonflies are a well-known group of insects (Corbet 1999) and many people appreciate their striking colours and acrobatic flights. Their larvae live in freshwater environments and use both running and still waters. Many species have small distributional ranges, and are specific to certain habitats, ranging from alpine mountain bogs to desert wadis. In the temperate regions of the world, dragonflies feature prominently in nature management and often they are used as indicators of environmental health and conservation management. Their sensitivity to the quality of habitat (Moore 1997) (e.g. forest cover, water chemistry, rivers and bank structure), their amphibious habits, and the relative ease of their identification make dragonflies well suited for

use in evaluating environmental changes in the long term (biogeography, climatology) and in the short term (biology conservation, water pollution, structural alteration of running and standing waters), although they are not as sensitive as many other benthic invertebrates, particularly those which are involved in determining the Biotic Indexes. There are several good identification keys and field guides available for the Mediterranean (Dijkstra and Lewington 2006, Dumont 1991, Jacquemin and Boudot 1999, Kalkman 2006). These enable mapping schemes to be conducted by volunteers, facilitating the use of distributional data on dragonflies in management.

Dragonflies can be recognized by their long and slender abdomen, their large globular eyes, which often make up a large portion of the head, their short antennae and their long wings. They are divided into two suborders,

1. Background

The two suborders of Odonata, damselflies and dragonflies are easy to recognize. The first have the shape of the hindwing base similar to the forewing one, eyes widely separated by head and the wings at rest are usually held shut, the second have the shape of the hindwing base different and much wider than the forewing one, eyes envelop head and often touch each other and the wings at rest are spread out. Photo: © Fabio Pupin.

1 2

namely Zygoptera or damselflies, and Anisoptera or true dragonflies. In this report the word ‘dragonflies’ is used for both suborders.

Dragonfly larvae prey on all kinds of small animals up to the size of tadpoles and small fish. Larvae take from a few weeks to several years to develop. Emergence takes place above the water on plants or on the shore, after which most species leave the water edge to mature. Males return to the water to search for females or to establish territories, and females often only return to mate and to lay their eggs.

With 5,680 species, dragonflies are a relatively small order of insects (Kalkman et al. 2008), and most of these species are found in the tropics. In the Mediterranean area (see Figure 2 for definition), 165 species are found, of which, 61 belong to the Zygoptera suborder and 104 to the Anisoptera suborder. In total 11 families are found in the region. The largest dragonfly families in the region

are the Libellulidae (48 species), the Coenagrionidae (35 species), the Gomphidae (21 species) and the Aeshnidae (16 species). Almost one in seven of the dragonfly species found in the Mediterranean Basin is endemic to the region, but endemism is especially common among the Calopterygidae, Platycnemididae, Cordulegastridae and Coenagrionidae families (see Table 1 next page).

1.2 The Mediterranean

The Mediterranean Basin, stretching west to east from Portugal to the Levant, and north to south from northern Italy to the northern coast of Africa, is one of the world’s richest places in terms of animal and plant diversity, and has a high level of endemism (Myers et al. 2000).

With almost 5,000 islands and islets, the Mediterranean comprises one of the largest groups of islands in the world. There are some 4,000 islands of less than 10 km2 in the Mediterranean, and 162 with a surface area of 10 km2 or more. The nine Mediterranean islands of over 1,000 km2 account for 83% of the total island area. These islands are of high value to global biodiversity due to their wealth of species and relatively high levels of endemism.

Blue emperor (Anax imperator) emerging. Odonata larvae lives in water for even some years, and for this is needed to protect water bodies. Underwater, the larva changes skin a lot of time during its live, growing up. When the growing period is finished, the larva goes out from the water and moults for the last time. During emergence the individual change completely shape of the body, wings and the abdomen expand, and after the time needed to became sufficiently hard, fly away as an adult individual. Photo: © Elisa Riservato.

Mediterranean rocky habitat in the Cres island, Croatia. Photo: © Fabio Pupin.

3 4

The region is characterized by its climate, where cool and wet winters alternate with long, hot, dry summers. Sometimes, for example in Libya and Egypt, annual rainfall is extremely low, but on the other hand, other countries are well-watered thanks to a high rainfall (including Algeria and part of the Balkans).

The countries bordering the Mediterranean have a total population of around 455 million people (Blue Plan 2008). The area has experienced intense human development and impact on its ecosystems for thousands of years, and various forms of human settlements have existed there for at least 8,000 years.

For many countries, water resources are a key issue, and in the southern Mediterranean countries, it is estimated that, Egypt, Israel, Libya, Malta, Syria and the Gaza Strip, for example, are using more than their renewable water resources (e.g. fossil water). About 64% of Mediterranean freshwater is used for agriculture (Blue Plan 2008).

In semi-arid areas, many years of unsustainable farming techniques have led to erosion, salinization and land degradation, and combined with the low rainfall, this has led to moderate risk of desertification that many areas in the Mediterranean are currently facing (Blue

Plan 2008). Whereas previously, exploitation of the natural landscape was long, slow and relatively sustainable, in recent decades, the traditional balance between nature and humankind has been lost. The development of tourism has placed significant pressure on the region, mainly on the coastal ecosystems. The shores of the Mediterranean Sea are the biggest large-scale tourist attraction in the world, and 246 million people – 31% of all international tourists – visited the countries of the region in 2005 (Blue Plan 2008).

The construction of infrastructures and the direct human impact remains a key threat to coastal areas in Turkey, Cyprus, Tunisia, Morocco and Greece, as well as on the smaller Mediterranean islands.

Human demography and encroachment, the intensification of agriculture, fires, over-grazing, tourism and climate change are some of the major threats to Mediterranean habitats. Habitat fragmentation is also a serious problem and the original flora and fauna often is left in small, scattered patches.

Today, a mere five percent of the original extent of the hotspot contains vegetation that is relatively intact, placing the Mediterranean Basin amongst the four most significantly altered hotspots on the planet (Myers et al. 2000).

Table 1. Diversity and endemism of the dragonfly families of dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin.

Order Suborder Family Number of species(% of species)

Number of endemic species (% endemic)

Odonata Zygoptera (damselflies) Calopterygidae 7 (4%) 3 (43%)

Epallagidae 1 (1%) 0 (0%)

Lestidae 10 (6%) 1 (10%)

Coenagrionidae 35 (21%) 8 (23%)

Platycnemididae 8 (5%) 3 (38%)

Sub-total of Zygoptera 61 (37%) 15 (25%)

Anisoptera (dragonflies) Aeshnidae 16 (10%) 1 (6%)

Gomphidae 21 (13%) 3 (14%)

Cordulegastridae 8 (5%) 3 (38%)

Corduliidae 9 (5%) 1 (11%)

Macromiidae 2 (1%) 0 (0%)

Libellulidae 48 (29%) 0 (0%)

Sub-total of Anisoptera 104 (63%) 8 (8%)

Total 165 (100%) 23 (14%)

3 4

1.3 Mediterranean wetlands

For thousands of years, the wetlands around the Mediterranean Basin have provided essential services to local humans – water, food, materials, and transport – and have acted as a backdrop to their social and cultural activities. But in recent times, and especially during the first part of the twentieth century, Mediterranean wetlands have been destroyed or degraded in order to prevent water-borne diseases, to make room for the construction of housing and industry due to regularly increasing human populations, and to favour the development of tourism. Many have been systematically converted into agricultural landscapes to increase the local production. This has resulted in an estimated half of all Mediterranean wetlands being lost (EEA 2008), and of those that still remain, the major ecosystems are degraded, and nearly all important rivers in the Mediterranean Basin have been dammed (Smith and Darwall 2006).

The most widespread threats to freshwater habitats are drainage for agriculture and drinking water, settlements, urbanization and pollution. Mechanisms such as embanking a river, the over-exploitation of groundwater resources, or building dams, are just some of the many reasons why wetlands are deteriorating.

Wetlands are crucial for dragonflies, as they need the presence of water during both their terrestrial and aquatic

phase. Water is the prime habitat for larvae, which can take years to develop and grow, and following this, adults will later need water for reproducing and often for food resources.

1.4 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

The conservation status of plants and animals is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition and biodiversity of an ecosystem. It also provides an important tool in establishing plans for priorities to conserve species. The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are the world’s most widely used system for gauging the extinction risk faced by species. This system is based on nine Categories (Figure 1), ranging from Least Concern, for species that are not threatened, to the Extinct category, for species that have disappeared from the planet (IUCN 2001).

These Categories are based on a set of quantitative criteria linked to population trends, population size and structure, and geographic range. Species classified as Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered are considered as ‘threatened’. When conducting regional or national assessments, two additional categories are used (Regionally Extinct and Not Applicable) for non-native species (IUCN 2004).

Lake Tonga in Algeria. Photo: © Boudjéma Samraoui.

5 6

IUCN has already assessed the conservation status of 629 (11%) of the world’s dragonflies species (IUCN 2008). Globally, 22% of the assessed dragonfly species are included in one of the threatened categories, and two species are Extinct (Megalagrion jugorum and Sympetrum dilatatum). However, IUCN is still in the early stages of assessing all 5,680 of the known dragonfly species. The assessment of all species in the Mediterranean region is a contribution to the overall aim of assessing the status of all dragonflies in the world.

1.5 Assessment objectives

This dragonfly assessment in the Mediterranean Basin has four main objectives:

To give an overview of the conservation status of �all dragonfly species present in the Mediterranean in order to facilitate conservation planning in the area.

To identify the geographic areas and habitats �that need to be conserved in order to prevent extinction.

To highlight the major threats to Mediterranean �dragonflies and propose conservation measures to mitigate their impact.

To develop a network of regional experts to support �future assessments and help update the information on these species within the context of the IUCN Global Dragonfly Assessment.

It also provides two main direct outputs:

A printed report focusing on the status and distribution �of dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin, as well as their main threats, and also providing a spatial representation of the centres of diversity. Recommendations for conservation measures will be given in order to reduce the impact of the identified threats.

The data presented in this report is based on the knowledge available at the time of the writing, but as new information becomes available, the assessments may be updated.

Figure 1. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria at regional scale.

Extinct (EX)

Extinct in the Wild (EW)

Regionally Extinct* (RE)

Critically Endangered (CR)

Threatened categories

Ext inct ion riskadequate data

Evaluated

Eligible for Regional assessment

All species

Endangered (EN)

Vulnerable (VU)

Near Threatened (NT)

Least Concern (LC)

Data Deficient (DD)

Not Applicable (NA)

Not Evaluated (NE)

+

-

5 6

2.1 Definition of the Mediterranean Basin for the assessment

The Mediterranean region, in terms of freshwater systems, was defined by identifying all catchments of rivers flowing into the Mediterranean Sea and the adjacent Atlantic waters in Spain, Portugal, and the Atlantic coast of Morocco, using GIS and the HYDRO1k Elevation Derivative Database (USGS EROS).

The assessment covers all drainages flowing into the Mediterranean Sea (Lower Nile only), in addition to the whole Iberian peninsula (except northern coastal drainages), the Marmara Sea drainages, the Tuz Golu in Turkey, the Dead Sea basin and River Jordan, the Moroccan drainages (both coastal and east flowing from the Atlas mountains), and the Chott Djerid and Melghir in Tunisia and Algeria respectively (Figure 2).

2.2 Regional and global assessments

The extinction risk of a species can be assessed at global, regional or national level. One species can have a different category in the Global Red List and a Regional Red List.

For example, a species that is common worldwide and classed as Least Concern (LC) in the Global Red List could face a high level of threat and fit the Endangered category (EN) in a particular region (see Figure 1 for the explanation of the IUCN categories). In order to avoid an over- or underestimation of the regional extinction risk of a species, the Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Level should be applied (IUCN 2004). Logically, an endemic species should have the same category at regional and global level, as it is not present in any other part of the world.

2.3 Training workshop and preliminary assessments

A training workshop on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria and their application at regional level was organized in Rabat (Morocco) in February 2007 by the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation in collaboration with the IUCN Species Programme.

During the workshop a list of species was defined, and the 165 species to be assessed were divided amongst the Mediterranean members of the Dragonfly Specialist

2. Assessment methodology

Figure 2. Mediterranean Basin as defined for this project.

7 8

Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). Preliminary conservation status assessments were conducted for all species using existing literature and data sources, in addition to personal knowledge. The data collected, including information on distribution, conservation measures, threats, habitats and ecology, was then entered into an MS-Access database via the IUCN Species Information Service Data Entry Module (SIS DEM).

2.4 Review Workshop

The Mediterranean members of the Dragonfly Specialist Group were invited to attend a five-day regional review workshop at CIBIO in Porto (Portugal) in October 2007. All participants received the preliminary assessments (SIS DEM species summary reports) before the workshop and were asked to check the data and ensure

that they included the most up-to-date, comprehensive and rigorous information.

A workshop session was dedicated to discussing the most appropriate conservation measures, in order to reduce the impact of the dragonfly’s main threats which were identified during the Red Listing process.

2.5 Post-workshop editing

Following the review workshop, the data was edited, and consistency in the use of IUCN Criteria was checked by the workshop participants and IUCN staff.

The resulting assessments, supported by relevant literature and references, provide the best available scientific consensus concerning the status of the species. Regular updates will be made when new information becomes available.

2.6 Database and distribution atlas of Mediterranean dragonflies

During the workshop held in Porto in October 2007, the participants decided to start working on an atlas of the Mediterranean and North Africa, which was published in March 2009 as Supplement 9 of the journal Libellula (Boudot et al. 2009).

This atlas combines several different databases covering a total of 35 countries (15 European). It shows the distribution of 179 species and some additional subspecies that are present in the Mediterranean countries in the area between 18°N and 47°N, from the Canary Islands to W Iran (Figure 3); an area that significantly exceeds the Mediterranean region defined in the present report.

This database was also used to create some of the maps presented here. The atlas itself gives important background information for conservation by showing the former and current distribution of all taxa.

The different databases will be maintained and expanded in the future. In the atlas, information can be found on the focal point of each of the different databases used; these are the people who should be contacted by those wanting to contribute to the databases or use them for analyses or conservation works. For those wanting information on the database in general, they should contact the Chair of the IUCN Dragonfly Specialist Group.

Red List training workshop in Rabat (Morocco, February 2007). Photo: © Annabelle Cuttelod.

Dragonflies review workshop in Porto (Portugal, October 2007). Photo: © Annabelle Cuttelod.

7 8

Figure 3. Overview of all the countries and data localities included in the atlas of the Mediterranean and North Africa and cover of the publication (Boudot et al. 2009).

The banded demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens) is a common polytypic species throughout rivers of the Northern countries of the Mediterranean region (except on the Iberian Peninsula). Although it is classified Least Concern in the Mediterranean, it decreases locally through the destruction of its habitat and that affects populations across its whole range. This species is under some taxonomic debate, and therefore threats in certain areas of its range may be more serious as they may affect subspecies with restricted range. The picture shows C. s. intermedia, a subspecies confined to small parts of the Eastern Mediterranean which may become Near Threatened in the near future. Photo: ©Jean-Pierre Boudot

Red dots = records prior to 1980blue dots = records from 1980 onwardsgreen dots = undated records.If records for both periods are available for a grid, the more recent records have priority.

9 10

3.1 Conservation status

A list of the dragonfly species present in the Mediterranean Basin, along with their IUCN Red List status, is available in Appendix 1. Of the 165 Mediterranean dragonflies species, 19% are classed as threatened: 3% are Critically Endangered, 8% are Endangered, and 8% are Vulnerable (Table 2; Figure 4). A total of 58% are classified as Least Concern, while 16% are Near Threatened. Four species (2%), Agriocnemis exilis, Ceriagrion glabrum, Rhyothemis semihyalina and Phyllomacromia africana are listed as Regionally Extinct. One species, Pantala flavescens, has been assessed as Not Applicable, as it is a circumtropical obligate migrant which goes north with the monsoons and shows only a very marginal occurrence and incidental reproduction in the Mediterranean.

Conservation status varies between dragonfly families and some appear to be more vulnerable than others. For example, in the Calopterygidae family, three species out of seven are classed as threatened (43%);

in the Coenagrionidae family, out of 35 species, six are threatened (17%), a further two are Regionally Extinct (6%) and six are Near Threatened (17%); in the Gomphidae family, six species out of 21 are threatened (29%); in the Cordulegastridae family, of the eight species, three are threatened (38%) and four are Near Threatened (49%); and in the Macromiidae family, comprised of two species, one is Regionally Extinct and the other is Vulnerable.

With respect to the endemic species, the results are not encouraging (Table 2, Figure 5). In fact, of the 23 species endemic to the Mediterranean Basin, nine are either Vulnerable or Endangered, and only eight are of Least Concern. Furthermore, several species are only marginally present in the Mediterranean Basin.

There is also another situation occurring amongst the northern and central European species, the alpine species, such as Somatochlora alpestris, S. arctica, Aeshna caerulea, Aeshna subarctica elisabethae, Nehalennia speciosa, Sympecma paedisca, and the various Leucorrhinia species. In this instance, although most of these species are classified as Least Concern on a global scale, their Mediterranean populations are sometimes under threat, due to their marginal and sometimes relict distribution in the region, and because of the fact that they are very sensitive to global warming and the desiccation of breeding habitats.

IUCN Red List Categories

No. of species

No. of endemic species

Regionally Extinct (RE) 4* 0

Critically Endangered (CR) 5 0

Endangered (EN) 13 5

Vulnerable (VU) 13 4

Near Threatened (NT) 27 5

Least Concern (LC) 96 8

Data Deficient (DD) 6 1

Not Applicable (NA) 1 0

Total 165 23

3. Results and discussion

Table 2. Summary of the Red List status of the dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin.

The oasis bluetail (Ischnura fountaineae) is a Least Concern species found in arid areas of the Mediterranean basin. Photo: © Jean-Pierre Boudot.

* The Regionally Extinct species Agriocnemis sania was recently found in Egypt during the IUCN African Dragonfly workshop.

9 10

Figure 4. Summary of the conservation status of all dragonflies in the Mediterranean.

Categories are abbreviated as: RE – Regionally Extinct; CR – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable, NT - Near Threatened, LC - Least Concern, DD - Data Deficient and NA - Not Applicable.

Table 3. Odonata species extinct at the Mediterranean Basin level

Figure 5. Summary of the conservation status of the endemic dragonflies in the Mediterranean.

Regionally Extinct speciesFour species, all with a largely Afrotropical distribution, are Regionally Extinct in the Mediterranean. Agriocnemis exilis, Ceriagrion glabrum and Phyllomacromia africana have not been recorded since the beginning of the 1900s. These species were only known to be found in the Mediterranean in the now largely urbanized, cultivated and polluted Nile delta and Cairo area. The Afrotropical Rhyothemis semihyalina was first and last seen in Algeria in the mid-nineteenth century and disappeared from the Levant during the middle of the twentieth century due to the draining of the former Lake Hula in Israel.

Threatened speciesIn the Mediterranean Basin, 31 species (19% of the total) are threatened (either Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable). Ten of these are endemic to the region and their situation gives extra reason for concern (see chapter 3.2.2.). Of the 31 threatened species, 22 are confined to running waters, while the others predominantly occur in still waters. All ten of the endemic threatened species are dependent on running waters. The threatened running water species are present throughout the region. The species that are dependant on standing waters, for the most part, fall into two groups: some of these are widespread Afrotropical species, which are rare in North Africa and threatened due to degradation of the freshwater marshes and lakes where they survived the aridification of the Saharan and Sahelian belts during the second half of the Holocene (Agriocnemis sania, Urothemis edwardsii, Acisoma panorpoides ascalaphoides, Nesciothemis farinosa); and others are mainly species with a central European or Boreo-Alpine distribution (Nehalennia speciosa, Sympecma paedisca, Leucorrhinia albifrons, Aeshna caerulea, Sympetrum depressiusculum). These species have experienced a strong decline due to habitat destruction, and are now further threatened

Family Genus Species Common name Red List status

COENAGRIONIDAE Agriocnemis exilis Little whisp RE

COENAGRIONIDAE Ceriagrion glabrum Common pond damsel RE

MACROMIIDAE Phyllomacromia picta Darting cruiser RE

LIBELLULIDAE Rhyothemis semihyalina Phantom flutterer RE

The last Mediterranean record of Common pond damsel (Ceriagrion glabrum) was made in Egypt in 1928. The species is thought to be Regionally Extinct due to the urbanization of the Cairo area. Socotra, Yemen. Photo: © Elisa Riservato.

11 12

Table 4. The Odonata threatened species at the Mediterranean Basin level.

Family Genus Species Common Name Red List statusEndemic to the Mediterranean (Y/N)?

COENAGRIONIDAE Agriocnemis sania - CR N

PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Mesocnemis robusta - CR N

COENAGRIONIDAE Nehalennia speciosa Sedgling CR N

LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum haritonovi Dwarf darter CR N

LIBELLULIDAE Urothemis edwardsii Blue basker CR N

LIBELLULIDAE Acisoma panorpoides Grizzled pintail EN N

CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx exul Glittering demoiselle EN Y

CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx hyalinaClear-winged demoiselle

EN Y

CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx syriaca Syrian demoiselle EN Y

CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster helladica Greek goldenring EN Y

GOMPHIDAE Gomphus graslinii Pronged clubtail EN N

LIBELLULIDAE Leucorrhinia albifrons Dark whiteface EN N

LIBELLULIDAE Nesciothemis farinosaBlack-tailed false-skimmer

EN N

GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus assimilis Dark princertail EN N

COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion niloticum - EN N

COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion nubicum - EN N

COENAGRIONIDAE Pyrrhosoma elisabethae Greek red damsel EN Y

LESTIDAE Sympecma paediscaSiberian winter damsel

EN N

AESHNIDAE Aeshna caerulea Azure Hawker VU N

AESHNIDAE Boyeria cretensis Cretan spectre VU Y

LIBELLULIDAE Brachythemis fuscopalliataDark-winged-groundling

VU N

COENAGRIONIDAE Ceriagrion georgifreyi Turkish red damsel VU Y

CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster heros Balkan goldenring VU Y

CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster picta Turkish goldenring VU N

GOMPHIDAE Gomphus lucasii Algerian clubtail VU Y

GOMPHIDAE Gomphus ubadschii Syrian clubtail VU N

MACROMIIDAE Macromia splendensShining macromia dragonfly

VU N

GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus flexuosus Waved princetail VU N

GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus macrodon Levant princetail VU N

CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora borisi Bulgarian emerald VU Y

LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum depressiusculum Spotted darter VU N

11 12

by climate change, as their habitats, such as fens and bogs, are being threatened by desiccation. The decline of Sympetrum depressiusculum is largely due to changes in the management of fishing waters and rice fields.

Near Threatened speciesIn the Mediterranean Basin, 27 species (16% of the total assessed) are classified as Near Threatened. These species are not yet considered to be threatened, but generally show a decline and could fit the criteria for a threatened category in the near future.

Data Deficient speciesSix species (4% of the total assessed) could not be assessed due to a lack of information regarding their past or current distribution, and are therefore categorized as Data Deficient. Only one of these species is found in Europe. Distribution of Epitheca bimaculata is, in the Mediterranean area, limited to Slovenia, Croatia, France, and in the past, North Italy. The species has a short flight period and an inconspicuous behaviour for which it is easily overlooked. Field investigations in Italy and Croatia need to be carried out when this species is emerging in order to reassess its present status within the Mediterranean. Lestes numidicus is the only Data Deficient species endemic to the Mediterranean, where it is currently only known to be found in Algeria. This is a recently described taxon and there is a lack of information about its possible distribution in other parts of the Mediterranean. The other four species all have a very limited range in the Mediterranean. Three of them have their main range in Asia (Ischnura intermedia, Paragomphus lineatus, Sympetrum vulgatum decoloratum) and a marginal occurrence in the eastern Mediterranean (mainly Turkey). Fieldwork focusing on the distribution and habitat of these species is needed. The fourth species, Orthetrum abbotti, is widespread in tropical Africa and is known from two Mediterranean records (1941, 2008), both showing it is confined to a small area on the fringes of the Dead Sea. Although the species here is probably a relict of a past post-glacial pluvial period, further investigations should be carried out to find out more about its true distribution in the Levant and Arabia.

Least Concern speciesIn the Mediterranean Basin, 96 species (58% of the total assessed) are not considered to be threatened at present or in the foreseeable future. They include mainly widespread species, but some of them may have only a small distribution area in the Mediterranean. Two of these, Oxygastra curtisii and Ophiogomphus cecilia, are included in the European Union Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC); the former given that its range is restricted to South-western Europe. At present, these species are better known and appear to be fairly common in the main part of its range (Oxygastra curtisii), or do not show a decline (Ophiogomphus cecilia).

Many of the Least Concern species are abundant and widespread, but will benefit from habitat conservation management actions as threatened species do.

The Spotted Darter (Sympetrum depressiusculum) used to be common in rice fields in the Mediterranean, but the intensification of agricultural practices has resulted in a strong decline of this species (Vulnerable). Camargue, France. Photo: © Jean–Pierre Boudot.

The ornate bluet (Coenagrion ornatum) is Near Threatened species threatened by habitat destruction. Potentially increased drought and drying out of habitats as a result of climate change is a future threat for this species that is included in the European Habitats Directive. Photo: ©Jean-Pierre Boudot.

13 14

Not Applicable speciesPantala flavescens is the only species of dragonfly that has been judged as Not Applicable. This species has a circumtropical distribution and is an obligate migrant, going north with the monsoon fronts and scarcely reaching the Mediterranean, yet it has once been reported to reproduce successfully in the region (Arlt 1999).

3.2 Patterns of species richness

3.2.1 Species richnessInformation on the species richness of dragonflies is given in Section 1 and Table 1. The geographic distribution of dragonfly species richness in the Mediterranean Basin is presented in Figure 6.

On a global scale, the diversity of dragonflies can be largely explained by temperature and precipitation, with the highest diversity being found in the wet and hot tropics. In the Mediterranean, diversity largely coincides with precipitation patterns: areas with a relatively high rainfall, like the Alps and the mountains of the Balkans, Turkey, and the Maghreb, have a high diversity, whereas

in regions with little rainfall, and hence relatively little freshwater, especially the Saharan belt, fewer species are found. Higher diversity in mountainous areas is of course not only influenced by rainfall, but also by the fact that there is a greater diversity of habitats in these areas.

Paleoclimatic events have also influenced the diversity of dragonflies. Past glacial times have strongly decreased species richness in parts of Europe and Asia and only a relatively small number of species were able to colonize these areas during the Holocene.

Table 3 shows the species richness in dragonflies of the countries of the Mediterranean Basin. As expected, higher totals of species are found in the countries of the central area of the basin. Italy has the highest number of species due to its particular shape, allowing the presence of North African species in the south, and alpine species in the north.

3.2.2 Distribution of endemic species richnessA relatively high percentage (14%) of Mediterranean dragonflies is endemic to the region. The highest numbers of endemic species are found in the Maghreb and the

The banded darter (Sympetrum pedemontanum). This species is present across all the northern part of Italy to Slovenia, the south eastern part of France and the Southern Balkans. Some isolated populations are known from the northern part of Spain and the western part of France. It favours standing water, such as shallow pools with developed vegetation and slow-flowing waters, such a ditches and irrigation channels, with developed vegetation. Habitat destruction is the main threat to the species and potentially increased drought and drying out of habitats as a result of climate change is a future threat. Most species of this genus are easy targets for predatory fish species and can be impacted by aquaculture, but there are no specific data on the overall effects of this (Least Concern). Photo: © Fabio Pupin

13 14

Levant, whereas the lowest numbers corresponds to the southern Balkans, Crete and the Western Mediterranean (Figure 7).

Endemic species of the Maghreb: Gomphus lucasii (VU), Calopteryx exul (EN), Cordulegaster princeps (NT), Lestes numidicus (DD), Enallagma deserti (LC) and Platycnemis subdilatata (LC). Most of them are

present in the running waters of the lower reaches of the mountains.

Levantine endemic species: Coenagrion georgifreyi (VU), Onychogomphus macrodon (VU), Calopteryx hyalina (EN), Calopteryx syriaca (EN), Coenagrion syriacum (NT), Pseudagrion syriacum (LC), Gomphus davidi (LC) and Platycnemis kervillei (LC). These

Figure 6. Species richness of dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin

Figure 7. Species richness of endemic dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin

15 16

are mainly present in Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories and the western parts of Syria. Many of them occur as far north as the Turkish Adana area (Ceyhan and Seyhan delta), while a few are present along the Turkish coast, mainly towards the west.

Southern Balkan endemic species: Pyrrhosoma elisabethae (EN), Cordulegaster helladica (EN) and Somatochlora borisi (VU). These are mainly present in Greece. The last-mentioned species is confined to irregular and partly shaded rivers in the northeast of Greece, the southeast of Bulgaria and European Turkey. Cordulegaster helladica occurs in small brooks in the Peloponnese up to the northern side of Corinth Gulf, Euboea, and in some Cyclades Islands (under several subspecies), while P. elisabethae ranges from the Peloponnese to Corfu and southern Albania.

Cretan endemic species: Boyeria cretensis (VU) and Coenagrion intermedium (NT). Both are scattered over the island of Crete, where they are more or less confined to the upper course of some rivers which remain unaltered and shaded.

Western Mediterranean endemic species:Onychogomphus costae (NT), Coenagrion caerulescens (LC), Ischnura genei (LC) and Cordulegaster trinacriae (NT).

3.2.3 Distribution of threatened species richnessThreatened dragonflies are found all over the Mediterranean region. There are however a few areas with high concentrations of threatened species (see Figure 8). The most notable are the Levant and southern Turkey, the southern Balkans, northeastern Algeria (Numidia) and the adjacent northern parts of Tunisia.

The Bulgarian Emerald (Somatochlora borisi) is confined to a small number of brooks and small rivers in the southeast of Bulgaria, the northeast of Greece and European Turkey (Vulnerable). Photo: © Jean–Pierre Boudot.

Figure 8. Species richness of threatened dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin

15 16

3.3 Major threats

Figure 9 shows a summary of the major threats to dragonflies in the Mediterranean region, as well as the number of threatened (31) and non-threatened (134) species.

Habitat loss and degradation caused by humans is the main threat for both threatened and non-threatened species, and is currently affecting 110 dragonfly species, including 30 of the 31 threatened species . Water pollution is also a

major concern as it is having an impact on 97 species, of which 30 of them are threatened. Natural disasters like, for example, the disappearance of breeding habitats due to drought, have the next biggest impact, affecting 75 species, of which 26 are being threatened.

Global warming is likely to exacerbate the impact and extent of several of these threats and is one of the biggest present and future threats to dragonflies. The alpine and Mediterranean species now confined to man-made sub-desert areas are the most sensitive to global change.

Figure 9. The present major threats to dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin

Desiccation of aquatic habitats, as a result of climate change and over–irrigation, is likely to become the main threat for many threatened Mediterranean dragonflies. Stymfalia Lake, NE Peloponnese, Greece. Photo: © Jean–Pierre Boudot.

17 18

4.1 General

Species frequently require a combination of conservation responses to ensure their continued survival. These responses include legislation, research, monitoring, population management, and land acquisition or control. Although time-limited or local actions are important for the conservation of dragonflies, they are unlikely to be strong enough or coherent enough to prevent the extinction of those species who are already threatened across their whole range. Therefore, long-term coordinated actions are required at regional, national and international level.

The protection of sites plays a crucial role in any effective conservation strategy. Several international treaties call for the selection and protection of sites on the basis of their importance for biodiversity. In Europe, the primary mechanism for site protection is the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The distribution data presented in Boudot et al. (2009) could be used to

fine-tune the selection of dragonfly conservation areas. Many European countries have no formal schemes for monitoring common and widespread species, let alone those under threat. One of the future challenges is to improve the monitoring so as to increase the quantity and quality of the information available. The results presented here should be updated and improved in the future. National dragonfly population monitoring schemes have started in some EU member countries. For example in the Netherlands, the “De Vlinderstichting” (Dutch Butterfly Conservation) has set up a surveillance and monitoring network aimed at providing information on distribution and populations trends for all Dutch butterflies and dragonflies species.

4.2 Regional action

This report shows where the highest diversity, highest level of endemism and highest portion of threatened dragonflies are found within the Mediterranean region.

4. Recommendations for priority conservation measures

Aquatic habitats in the Maghreb are under a lot of pressure, resulting in the decline of species, such as the glittering demoiselle (Calopteryx exul). Local capacity building for using information on aquatic fauna in conservation planning is needed (Endangered). Photo: © Jean–Pierre Boudot.

17 18

Based on this, five areas with high conservation concern were selected. These areas are discussed below, and for each one the conservation actions are prioritized.

The MaghrebThe Maghreb has a high level of endemism and the pressure on freshwater habitats is increasing, largely given the population increase [x 2.5 in Morocco, x 3.1 in Algeria and x 2.3 in Tunisia between 1961 and 2003] (FAOSTAT, 2004 – 2005).

A freshwater action plan for the Maghreb is highly �desirable. This plan should include an overview of the protected areas which can be used to determine the main gaps in the protection of freshwater plants and animals.

A species action plan for the CR and relict species, �Urothemis edwardsii, is urgently needed. This could be carried out under a management plan for Lac Bleu (northeast Algeria); an area which has several relict macroinvertebrates.

In Morocco and Tunisia, there is an advanced level of �knowledge on dragonflies thanks to various important publications, but this should be urgently updated in Algeria as it could not be done during recent decades, except for in the northeast, due to the local politic situation. However, with the exception of Algeria, there is no specialist present in the Maghreb, so at present there is no monitoring being carried out in Morocco and Tunisia. It is advisable that a capacity building workshop be organized in order to train students and involve local people working within the network of Mediterranean dragonflies. This could also be used to increase contact between people working on freshwater issues in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

The LevantThe Levant, including the southern part of Turkey, scores high in regards to levels of diversity, the presence of endemic species, and the presence of threatened species. The increasing demand for water, in combination with climate change, makes it likely that the conservation status of many species will deteriorate in the near future.

A freshwater action plan for the region is needed. �Protection of the largest river systems is dependent

on the cooperation between the regional countries, and this is not easy given the local political situation. However, a freshwater action plan can be used to emphasize how important cooperation is and also outline possibilities. After a period of strong alteration in most local hydrosystems, some nature reserves have been created and may favour the monitoring of dragonflies if it is not already being done. The Lake Hula/Lake Agmon Nature Reserve in North Israel, and the Aammiq Wetland Nature Reserve in the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon, are fine examples of this. A freshwater action plan dealing with running waters would be an important complement to those addressing still waters, and it should include an assessment of the quality and conservation of the biodiversity in all kinds of freshwater habitats. Based on this analysis, catchments of major conservation concern for flora and fauna can then be determined.

It is advisable that a species action plan for �Onychogomphus macrodon be made. This species is strictly endemic to the Levant, where it is confined to large rivers. All these rivers are strongly impacted by gravel-mining, damming and pollution. In combination with other animals, this species could well be used as flagship for the protection of river systems in the Levant.

The best knowledge regarding dragonflies refers �mainly to the past. Presently, with the exception of Turkey, there are only a few permanent high-level specialists in this area, so the current information is only fragmentary. That said, real scientific studies by local people and scientific visitors are currently being done in some hotspots, such as the Aammiq Nature Reserve, where a number of short-term research projects and a monitoring programme have been or are being carried out. This reserve is managed by the Christian nature conservation organization “A Rocha Lebanon” and a paper report on dragonflies is available (Storey et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the overall amount of distribution data and biological studies available for the Levant from the eighties and onwards remains rather low and incomplete. It is advisable that a capacity building workshop be organized in order to train students and involve the local people working in the network focusing on Mediterranean dragonflies.

19 20

CreteThe dragonfly fauna in Crete is relatively low but features two endemic species: Coenagrion intermedium and Boyeria cretensis. Both are threatened in the present context of global warming and rainfall deficit. They breed in shaded areas in the upper courses of some small Cretan rivers and are presently known from only 9 and 11 river systems, respectively. The protection of running waters and their forest environment is rather poor in Crete, and the rapid increase of spring capture throughout the whole of Greece to compensate the current rainfall deficit is an additional threat. The conservation of these two species implies the prohibition of any additional spring capture.

Better knowledge on the distribution of � Boyeria cretensis and Coenagrion intermedium is needed, and in having this, a better estimate of their long-term survival chances will be possible.

A freshwater action plan is needed for Crete. This �should include an assessment of the quality and conservation status of freshwater habitats (especially brooks), from which it will be decided whether the current situation is compatible with the conservation of freshwater biodiversity or if a restoration procedure should be initiated.

Southern BalkansThe southern Balkans have a rich dragonfly fauna including several endemic species. Nature organizations are not very strong in the area and there is little interest in nature compared to other parts of Europe. Many of the regional species live in brooks, and these habitats are strongly impacted by agricultural developments and pollution. In addition, climate change is severely impacting these habitats, resulting in the desiccation of many streams and rivers during the summer. Three of the most threatened dragonflies of the Mediterranean (Pyrrhosoma elisabethae, Cordulegaster helladica and Somatochlora borisi) are confined to brooks and small rivers from Greece and nearby countries (Albania, Bulgaria and European Turkey). Without action, these species might become extinct during the first half of this century.

It is advisable that a species action plan be made for these three taxa. The range of Somatochlora borisi is for a small part included in the WWF Dadia protected area in northeast Greece; this protected area should be extended across the range of this species to Greece,

Bulgaria and north-European Turkey to create an international protected area, ensuring the conservation of the original deciduous forest and the traditional extensive rearing of goats and sheep. Most of the rivers inhabited by this species are already intermittent and almost dry in the summer, with only the deeper pools allowing the species to survive. For this reason, water capture and irrigation should be prohibited from late spring to the next rain season in autumn or early winter. In addition, total protection should be granted to the places where Pyrrhosoma elisabethae and Cordulegaster helladica are known to inhabit, conserving the current prevalent environmental conditions and prohibiting water capture in the upper courses of the brooks and rivers.

Western MediterraneanWith the exception of the species endemic to the Maghreb (see above), all endemic species of the Western Mediterranean have a relatively large range and none are in a threatened category. There are, however, great problems in freshwater management across the whole region. Over-irrigation is being increasingly observed due to the desiccation of rivers and brooks and furthermore, pollution is being poorly controlled, therefore dragonflies can be used to monitor freshwater hydrology and quality. In Portugal, Spain and Italy there is the potential to set up a network of volunteers to collect current distribution data on dragonflies, similar to the French INVOD and CILIF programmes, and from this, new information on the species listed in the Habitat Directive will be obtained. This will help to get an initial overview, which will be more deeply investigated by additional studies dealing with water chemistry and hydrology, and by establishing a biological index on representative hotspots.

It is advisable that Portugal, Spain and Italy invest �in a network of volunteers in order to collect more extensive distribution data. This should include the publication of updated identification tools in the local language and creating an internet facility for storing the records.

4.3 Dragonflies as tools: databases and monitoring

Dragonflies are excellent tools for freshwater conservation because:

they are useful for providing a first insight into the �quality and structure of aquatic habitats, although

19 20

they are not the best indicators and are not involved in determining biotic indexes.

their distribution can be mapped with the aid of �volunteers, so that much more information is available for this group than for any other.

they are generally popular and have a wide audience, �and thus can be used as appreciated ambassadors for freshwater conservation, which is important for raising awareness among non-specialists.

In order to use dragonflies as a quality indicator, up-to-date information on distribution is needed. For specific projects, specialists can gather information, however, to obtain countrywide information it is far more cost-efficient to establish a network of volunteers. This is what has been established in France since the 1980’s, tends to develop in parts of Spain, and will probably be developed in Portugal and Italy. Building and constructing a network of volunteers is time consuming, and work on this needs financial support.

The distribution data on Mediterranean dragonflies is being maintained in several national and regional databases. All these databases have been built by single volunteers or by NGOs. Information on the contact persons of these databases can be obtained from the first author of the present report or found in Boudot et al. (2009). In most cases, the databases can be used for conservation projects and scientific research, but depending on the project, a financial contribution to the database management may or may not be required. Dragonflies are suitable for monitoring the quality of freshwater habitats. Countrywide monitoring

based on work by volunteers is not yet possible in the Mediterranean, however small funded projects in order to monitor threatened endemic species are. This would be useful for species such as: Calopteryx exul, Pyrrhosoma elisabethae, Onychogomphus macrodon and Somatochlora borisi. Information on monitoring methods can be obtained from the Butterfly Conservation, The Netherlands.

Dragonflies can serve as reliable indicators of water quality and habitat health. Piedmont, Italy. Photo: © Fabio Pupin.

21 22

The Mediterranean area is an hotspot of biodiversity and endemism for dragonflies too. For some of the countries included in the area some dragonfly species already receive some conservation attention thanks to international laws (e.g. the European Habitat Directive) but others do not and are facing the risk of extinction. The results of this Report highlight that Threatened dragonflies in the Mediterranean Basin require urgent action to improve their status and priorities identified in this study include addressing threats such as destruction and degradation of freshwater habitats and the need of improving monitoring, surveys and studies in some important areas in the Mediterranean Basin. In this

report it is shown where the highest diversity, highest level of endemism and highest portion of threatened dragonflies is found within the Mediterranean region. Based on this, five areas, the Maghreb, The Levant, Crete island, Southern Balkans (mostly Greece) and Western Mediterranean, have been individuated where high conservation concern must be developed. To ensure that Mediterranean species are secure in the long term, this needs to be combined with the political will to truly integrate biodiversity conservation into all policy sectors. Sustained investment in species, site and landscape level conservation and monitoring is needed for all Mediterranean countries.

5. Conclusion

Dragonflies’ species identification and data collection in the Teknepinar region, south of Turkey. Photo: ©Gilles Jacquemin.

21 22

Arlt, J. 1999: Entwicklungsnachweis von Pantala flavescens (Fabricius) in der Türkei (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Libellula 18: 95-96.

Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (Eds) 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Blue Plan. 2008. The Blue Plan´s Sustainable Development Outlook for the Mediterranean. UNEP Blue Plan Activity Centre, Sophia Antipolis, France.

Boudot J.P., Kalkman, V.J., Azpilicueta Amorín, M., Bogdanović, Cordero Rivera, T.A., Degabriele, G., Dommanget, J. L., Ferreira, S., Garrigós, B., Jović, M., Kotarac, M., Lopau, W., Marinov, M., Mihoković, N., Riservato, E., Samraoui, B. and Schneider, W. 2009. Atlas of the Odonata of the Mediterranean and North Africa. Libellula Supplement 9, 256 pp.

Corbet, P.S. 1999. Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Harley, Colchester.

Dijkstra, K.-D.B. and R. Lewington, 2006. Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Britain and Europe. British Wildlife Publishing, Gillingham.

Dumont, H.J. 1991: Odonata of the Levant. Fauna Palaestina. Insecta V. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2008. Ecosystem Accounting for the Cost of Biodiversity Losses: Framework and Case Study for Coastal Mediterranean Wetlands. Available online at http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/understanding-the-full-value-of-biodiversity-loss/ecosystem-accounting-for-the-cost-of-biodiversity-losses-framework-and-case-study-for-coastal-mediterranean-wetlands-abstract-2013-31-march-2008

FAOSTAT. 2004-2005. Available online at: http://faostat.fao.org

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org.

IUCN. 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org.

IUCN 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Jacquemin G. and J.P. Boudot. 1999. Les Libellules (Odonates) du Maroc. Société Française d’Odonatologie, Bois d’Arcy, France.

Kalkman, V.J., 2006. Key to the dragonflies of Turkey, including species known from Greece, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Syria, the Trans-Caucasus and Iran. Brachytron 10: 3-82.

Kalkman, V.J., V. Clausnitzer, K.-D.B. Dijkstra, A.G. Orr, D.R. Paulson and J. van Tol, (2008). Global diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater. In: Balian, E., K. Martens, C. Lévêque and H. Segers (Editors). A global assessment of animal diversity in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 351-363.

Smith, Kevin G. and Darwall, William R.T. (Compilers). 2006. The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, Siwtzerland and Cambridge, UK. v + 34 pp.

Moore, W.N. (Compiler). 1997. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Dragonflies. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.

Myers, N. Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Fonseca, G.A.B.de. and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858.

Storey R., F. Halibi and E. Garber. 2006. Dragonflies of the Aammiq area Lebanon. A Rocha Lebanon, 16 pp.

References

23 24

Order Family SpeciesIUCN

Red List Category

IUCN Red List Criteria

Endemic to the Mediterranean?

(Y/N)

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna mixta LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Anax ephippiger LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes numidicus DD YES

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Acisoma panorpoides EN A2c; B2ab(iii) NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Pantala flavescens NA NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Rhyothemis semihyalina RE NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum sanguineum LC NO

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion puella LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Enallagma deserti LC YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Erythromma lindenii LC NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis subdilatata LC YES

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna caerulea VU B2ab(iii) NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna grandis LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna juncea LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna subarctica NT NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Boyeria cretensis VUB1ab(ii,iii,iv)+

2ab(ii,iii,iv)YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion hastulatum LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion intermedium NT YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Nehalennia speciosa CRA1c; B1b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,iv)

NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTERIDAE Cordulegaster trinacriae NT YES

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Epitheca bimaculata DD NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora alpestris NT NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora arctica NT NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora flavomaculata LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Ophiogomphus cecilia LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes macrostigma NT NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes sponsa LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Sympecma paedisca ENB1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)+2

ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Leucorrhinia caudalis NT NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Leucorrhinia pectoralis LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum danae LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura genei LC YES

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Leucorrhinia albifrons ENB2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v);

C1NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus assimilis EN A2ac+3bc NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster bidentata NT B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v) NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora borisi VU C1 YES

Appendix 1. Red List status of Mediterranean dragonflies

23 24

Order Family SpeciesIUCN

Red List Category

IUCN Red List Criteria

Endemic to the Mediterranean?

(Y/N)

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum brunneum LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura fountaineae LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus forcipatus LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus uncatus LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Paragomphus genei LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes virens LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Sympecma fusca LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Diplacodes lefebvrii LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum cancellatum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum chrysostigma LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum coerulescens LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum sabina LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum trinacria LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum meridionale LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum sinaiticum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Trithemis arteriosa LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Trithemis kirbyi LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion caerulescens LC YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Agriocnemis exilis RE NO

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx exul EN B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) YES

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Nesciothemis farinosa EN B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv) NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Brachythemis fuscopalliata VU A2ac+3c; C1 NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ceriagrion glabrum RE NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus graslinii EN B2ab(iii) NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus costae NT YES

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Oxygastra curtisii LC NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster helladica ENA2ac+3c;

B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)YES

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Boyeria irene LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus lucasii VU A3c; C1 YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion mercuriale NT NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Selysiothemis nigra LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion niloticum EN B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion nubicum EN B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv) NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pyrrhosoma nymphula LC NO

ODONATA MACROMIIDAE Phyllomacromia picta RE NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster princeps NT YES

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Libellula quadrimaculata LC NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Mesocnemis robusta CRB1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)+2

ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Agriocnemis sania CRA2ce+3ce;

B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v); D1

NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion scitulum LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus simillimus NT NO

ODONATA MACROMIIDAE Macromia splendens VU A3c NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion sublacteum LC NO

25 26

Order Family SpeciesIUCN

Red List Category

IUCN Red List Criteria

Endemic to the Mediterranean?

(Y/N)

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Lindenia tetraphylla NT NO

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx virgo LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus flavipes NT NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Leucorrhinia dubia NT A3c NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Brachytron pratense NT NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Caliaeschna microstigma NT NO

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx splendens LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ceriagrion georgifreyi VU A3c YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion ornatum NT NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion pulchellum NT NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Erythromma najas NT NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura elegans LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pyrrhosoma elisabethae EN B2ab(ii,iii) YES

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster heros VU A3c NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster insignis NT NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster picta VU A3c NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Cordulia aenea NT NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora meridionalis LC NO

ODONATA CORDULIIDAE Somatochlora metallica NT NO

ODONATA EUPHEIDAE Epallage fatime LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus schneiderii LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes parvidens LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Libellula depressa LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Libellula fulva LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum albistylum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum depressiusculum VU A3c NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum flaveolum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum pedemontanum LC NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis pennipes LC NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis pennipes LC YES

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus vulgatissimus LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna cyanea LC NO

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx xanthostoma LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Erythromma viridulum LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura graellsii LC NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis latipes LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes viridis LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum nitidinerve LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum fonscolombii LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum vulgatum NT NO

ODONATA CORDULEGASTRIDAE Cordulegaster boltonii LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Anax parthenope LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna isoceles LC NO

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Anax imperator LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ceriagrion tenellum LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Enallagma cyathigerum LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura pumilio LC NO

25 26

Order Family SpeciesIUCN

Red List Category

IUCN Red List Criteria

Endemic to the Mediterranean?

(Y/N)

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Aeshna affinis LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus pulchellus LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes barbarus LC NO

ODONATA LESTIDAE Lestes dryas LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Crocothemis erythraea LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum striolatum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Trithemis annulata LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Zygonyx torridus NT NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis acutipennis LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus ubadschii VU A2c+3c+4c NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus flexuosus VU A2c+3c+4c NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Paragomphus lineatus DD NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Crocothemis servilia LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Libellula pontica NT NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum decoloratum DD NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Sympetrum haritonovi CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Trithemis festiva LC NO

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx syriaca EN A2ac YES

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis dealbata LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Coenagrion syriacum NT YES

ODONATA CALOPTERYGIDAE Calopteryx hyalina EN A2ac YES

ODONATA AESHNIDAE Anax immaculifrons LC NO

ODONATA PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Platycnemis kervillei LC YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura intermedia DD NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura evansi LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura senegalensis LC NO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion syriacum LC YES

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Pseudagrion torridum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Brachythemis leucosticta LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus macrodon VU A3c+4c NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Gomphus davidi LC YES

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum abbotti DD NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum ransonnetii LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Orthetrum taeniolatum LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Crocothemis sanguinolenta LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Onychogomphus lefebvrii LC NO

ODONATA GOMPHIDAE Paragomphus pumilio LC NO

ODONATA LIBELLULIDAE Urothemis edwardsii CRA2ac; B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(ii,iii,iv,v);

C1+2a(ii); DNO

ODONATA COENAGRIONIDAE Ischnura saharensis LC YES

27 28

Appendix 2. Example of species summary and distribution map

Taxonomic Authority: (Selys, 1849)

Urothemis edwardsii

Region: Mediterranean

Kingdom: ANIMALIA Phylum: ARTHROPODAClass: INSECTA

Upper Level Taxonomy

Lower Level Taxonomy

Rank: Infra- rank name:

Authority:Subpopulation:

CRSynonyms Common names

Order: ODONATAFamily: LIBELLULIDAE

Global Assessment Regional Assessment Endemic to region

Plant Hybrid

General Information

Libellula edwardsii Selys, 1849Urothemis edwardsi Dumont, 1975

BLUE BASKER English (Primary)

The taxonomy of Urothemis edwardsii (Selys, 1849) poses no problems, with the exception of the subspecies hulae Dumont, 1975, describing relict populations in the upper Jordan Valley (Dumont 1975, 1991). Because the species was described from a single female (type locality: Lac Oubeira, N-Algeria) no variation for nominotypical population(s) were known. Its range has since been shown to lie predominantly south of the Sahara, encompassing most of tropical Africa. To judge the validity of U. edwardsii hulae it is therefore crucial to know the variation in nominotypical population(s) from Algeria. Although Algerian specimens are said to be come closer to sub-Saharan ones, U. e. hulae specimens are described to fall within the variation (extend of basal spot in hindwing) of the latter. We therefore conclude that subspecies hulae is not valid.

Extent of Occurrence: 20 km² (2

Area of Occupancy: Upper limit:

Lower limit:

Upper limit:

Lower limit:

Depth

Depth Zones

Shallow photic

Photic

Bathyl

Abyssal

Hadal

Afrotropical

Antarctic

Australasian

Neotropical

Oceanian

Palearctic

Indomalayan

Nearctic

Map Status: incomplete

Elevation Biogeographic RealmRange Size

DistributionThe main range of Urothemis edwardsii lies south of the Sahara, encompassing most of tropical Africa (Dijkstra 2006, Samraoui et al. 1993). Regional records for the Mediterranean are restricted to three localities in northern Algeria (Samraoui et al. 1993),one sighting in Tunisia (Jödicke et al. 2000) and about eight localities in the Jordan Valley (Dumont 1975, 1991, Schmidt 1938,Schneider 1986). Apart from the now extinct populations in Palestine, there are strong relict subpopulations in southeastern Arabia, Oman (Waterston 1981, Waterston and Pittaway 1991, Schneider and Dumont 1997). Of the three Algerian populations two became extinct within the last two decades; the last one, Lac Bleu (a lake of only 2 ha size) had not more than forty (40) individuals restricted to a small sector of the lake.

Type locality Algeria.

Population

In 1992 not more than forty (40) individuals were counted from the last known regional population at Lac Bleu in northern Algeria (Samraoui et al. 1993, Samraoui and Menai 1999, Samraoui and Corbet 2000). It is extinct in Israel.

27 28

Threats

Conservation Measures

Minimum Population Size:

Total Population Size

Maximum Population Size:

Marshy verges of lakes and nearly stagnant sections of rivers and wadis.

Habitat and Ecology

System

Terrestrial

Marine

Freshwater

Movement pattern

Congregatory/Dispersive

Migratory

Is the species a wild relative of a crop?

Crop Wild Relative

Nomadic

Altitudinally migrant

Eutrophication, destruction of riparian vegetation, and water extraction. Fire is also a threat.

FuturePresentPast1 Habitat Loss/Degradation (human induced) 1.1 Agriculture 1.1.7 Freshwater aquaculture 1.3 Extraction 1.3.6 Groundwater extraction 1.5 Invasive alien species (directly impacting habitat)6 Pollution (affecting habitat and/or species) 6.3 Water pollution 6.3.1 Agriculture9 Intrinsic factors 9.1 Limited dispersal 9.2 Poor recruitment/reproduction/regeneration 9.5 Low densities 9.9 Restricted range10 Human disturbance 10.5 Fire

Unless urgent, immediate and effective measures are taken to protect Lac Bleu from human impact (pollution, drainage), the last known (topotypical) population of Urothemis edwardsii will probably cease to exist (Samraoui and Corbet 2000).

In Place Needed1 Policy-based actions

1.1 Management plans

1.2 Legislation

1.3 Community management

2 Communication and Education

3 Research actions

3.1 Taxonomy

3.2 Population numbers and range

3.3 Biology and Ecology

3.4 Habitat status

3.5 Threats

3.8 Conservation measures

3.9 Trends/Monitoring

4 Habitat and site-based actions

4.1 Maintenance/Conservation

4.2 Restoration

4.3 Corridors

4.4 Protected areas

4.4.1 Identification of new protected areas

4.4.4 Expansion

4.5 Community-based initiatives

Countries of Occurrence

VagrantBreeding Season

only

Presenceuncertain

Possibly extinct

Year Round

Non-breeding

season only

Passage migrant

Extinct Re-Introduced

Origin uncertain

PRESENCE

IntroducedNative

ORIGIN

Algeria

Israel

Palestinian Territory, Occupied

Tunisia

General Habitats Score Description Major Importance

5 Wetlands (inland) Suitable1 Unset

5.4 Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands Suitable1 Unset

5.5 Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha) Suitable1 Unset

5.7 Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)

Suitable1 Unset

5.9 Wetlands (inland) - Freshwater Springs and Oases Suitable1 Unset

Ecosystem Services

Insufficient Information available Species provides no ecosystem services

Score according to relative importance where 1 = very important, 2 = important, 3 = some importance,

Unknown

UnknownWater Supplies 4

UnknownFlood Control 4

UnknownClimate Regulation 4

UnknownLandscape 4

UnknownAir Quality 4

UnknownNutrient Cycling 4

UnknownHabitat Maintenance 4

UnknownPollination 4

UnknownErosion Control 4

Water Quality 4

Provision of Critical Habitat 4 Unknown

Ecosystem service Geographic range over which benefits are felt?Score (from 1 to 5)

4 = not important/relevant and 5 = not known.

29 30

3.8 Conservation measures

3.9 Trends/Monitoring

4 Habitat and site-based actions

4.1 Maintenance/Conservation

4.2 Restoration

4.3 Corridors

4.4 Protected areas

4.4.1 Identification of new protected areas

4.4.4 Expansion

4.5 Community-based initiatives

Countries of Occurrence

VagrantBreeding Season

only

Presenceuncertain

Possibly extinct

Year Round

Non-breeding

season only

Passage migrant

Extinct Re-Introduced

Origin uncertain

PRESENCE

IntroducedNative

ORIGIN

Algeria

Israel

Palestinian Territory, Occupied

Tunisia

General Habitats Score Description Major Importance

5 Wetlands (inland) Suitable1 Unset

5.4 Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands Suitable1 Unset

5.5 Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha) Suitable1 Unset

5.7 Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)

Suitable1 Unset

5.9 Wetlands (inland) - Freshwater Springs and Oases Suitable1 Unset

Ecosystem Services

Insufficient Information available Species provides no ecosystem services

Score according to relative importance where 1 = very important, 2 = important, 3 = some importance,

Unknown

UnknownWater Supplies 4

UnknownFlood Control 4

UnknownClimate Regulation 4

UnknownLandscape 4

UnknownAir Quality 4

UnknownNutrient Cycling 4

UnknownHabitat Maintenance 4

UnknownPollination 4

UnknownErosion Control 4

Water Quality 4

Provision of Critical Habitat 4 Unknown

Ecosystem service Geographic range over which benefits are felt?Score (from 1 to 5)

4 = not important/relevant and 5 = not known.

UnknownBiocontrol 4

UnknownShoreline Protection 4

Other (specify)

Define Other:

Other (specify)

Define Other:

Species UtilisationSpecies is not utilised at all

IUCN Red ListingRed List Assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)(using 2001 IUCN system)

Red List Criteria: A2ac; B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(ii,iii,iv,v); C1+2a(ii); D

Date Last Seen (only for EX, EW or Possibly EX species):

Threat category adjusted from Global to Regional status: No Change in Category

Is the species Possibly Extinct? Possibly Extinct Candidate?

Rationale for the Red List Assessment

Current Population Trend: Decreasing Date of Assessment: 10/4/2007

Reason(s) for Change in Red List Category from the Previous Assessment:

Name(s) of the Assessor(s): Samraoui, B. & Schneider, W

Evaluator(s): Boudot, J.-P. (Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Workshop, Oct. 2007) & Pollock, C.M. (Red List Unit)

Genuine Change

Genuine (recent)

Genuine (since first assessment)

Nongenuine Change

New information

Knowledge of Criteria

Incorrect data used previously

Taxonomy

Criteria Revisio

Other

No Change

Same category and criteria

Same category but change in criteria

Notes:

The two regional populations in the Mediterranean (Levant, and northeastern Algeria) of Urothemis edwardsii have lost at least 80% of their subpopulations within the last 10/20 years: eight localities in Israel/Palestine are all now extinct; and only one of the three known locations in northeastern Algeria is left (at Lac Bleu). This evidence is based on direct observations carried out regularly (Samraoui et al. 1993; Samraoui and Menai 1999; Samraoui and Corbet 2000; Dumont 1975, 1991; Dimentman et al. 1992). One observation (without voucher specimen) in Tunisia (Jödicke et al. 2000) needs confirmation, however habitat in this part of the range is now destroyed so it is likely now extinct in Tunisia.

As Lac Bleu covers only about 20 km², the extent of occurrence (EOO) is less than 100 km². The breeding population of not more than 40 breeding individuals is said to be restricted to one small sector of the lake (area of occupancy (AOO) <10 km²) and there is a continuing decline in habitat quality (Samraoui et al. 1993, Samraoui and Corbet 2000). When there are only about 40 adults on the wing, then it is more than reasonable to assume that the total population size (including larvae) at thissingle location is less than 250.

The Lac Bleu site was visited in 2007 and no individuals were found (it was last recorded in 2006). It may already be RegionallyExtinct in the Mediterranean region, but more surveys are required to confirm this, therefore it is currently assessed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct) within the Mediterranean. A future reassessment may result in this species moving into the Regionally Extinct category for the Mediterranean and North Africa regions. It should also be noted that the Algerian populationis the only nominotypical one left.

There is no immigration/recruitment of Urothemis edwardsii individuals from outside the region (from sub-Saharan populations) therefore the initial category is retained.

207 IUCN Red List: LC (Clausnitzer, V. 2006)

29 30

UnknownBiocontrol 4

UnknownShoreline Protection 4

Other (specify)

Define Other:

Other (specify)

Define Other:

Species UtilisationSpecies is not utilised at all

IUCN Red ListingRed List Assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)(using 2001 IUCN system)

Red List Criteria: A2ac; B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(ii,iii,iv,v); C1+2a(ii); D

Date Last Seen (only for EX, EW or Possibly EX species):

Threat category adjusted from Global to Regional status: No Change in Category

Is the species Possibly Extinct? Possibly Extinct Candidate?

Rationale for the Red List Assessment

Current Population Trend: Decreasing Date of Assessment: 10/4/2007

Reason(s) for Change in Red List Category from the Previous Assessment:

Name(s) of the Assessor(s): Samraoui, B. & Schneider, W

Evaluator(s): Boudot, J.-P. (Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Workshop, Oct. 2007) & Pollock, C.M. (Red List Unit)

Genuine Change

Genuine (recent)

Genuine (since first assessment)

Nongenuine Change

New information

Knowledge of Criteria

Incorrect data used previously

Taxonomy

Criteria Revisio

Other

No Change

Same category and criteria

Same category but change in criteria

Notes:

The two regional populations in the Mediterranean (Levant, and northeastern Algeria) of Urothemis edwardsii have lost at least 80% of their subpopulations within the last 10/20 years: eight localities in Israel/Palestine are all now extinct; and only one of the three known locations in northeastern Algeria is left (at Lac Bleu). This evidence is based on direct observations carried out regularly (Samraoui et al. 1993; Samraoui and Menai 1999; Samraoui and Corbet 2000; Dumont 1975, 1991; Dimentman et al. 1992). One observation (without voucher specimen) in Tunisia (Jödicke et al. 2000) needs confirmation, however habitat in this part of the range is now destroyed so it is likely now extinct in Tunisia.

As Lac Bleu covers only about 20 km², the extent of occurrence (EOO) is less than 100 km². The breeding population of not more than 40 breeding individuals is said to be restricted to one small sector of the lake (area of occupancy (AOO) <10 km²) and there is a continuing decline in habitat quality (Samraoui et al. 1993, Samraoui and Corbet 2000). When there are only about 40 adults on the wing, then it is more than reasonable to assume that the total population size (including larvae) at thissingle location is less than 250.

The Lac Bleu site was visited in 2007 and no individuals were found (it was last recorded in 2006). It may already be RegionallyExtinct in the Mediterranean region, but more surveys are required to confirm this, therefore it is currently assessed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct) within the Mediterranean. A future reassessment may result in this species moving into the Regionally Extinct category for the Mediterranean and North Africa regions. It should also be noted that the Algerian populationis the only nominotypical one left.

There is no immigration/recruitment of Urothemis edwardsii individuals from outside the region (from sub-Saharan populations) therefore the initial category is retained.

207 IUCN Red List: LC (Clausnitzer, V. 2006)

Number of Locations: 1

Number of Mature Individuals: 40

% population decline in the past: 80

% population decline in the future: ?

Time period over which the past decline has been measured for applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations):

10 to 15 years

Time period over which the future decline has been measured for applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations):

Severely Fragmented:

Bibliography

Dijkstra, K.D., 2006, Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Britain and Europe., 320, Britisch Wildlife Publishing, Gillingham

Dumont, H.J., 1975, Endemic dragonflies of late pleistocene age of the Hula lake area (northern Israel), with notes on the Calopterygidae of the rivers Jordan (Israel, Jordan) and Litani (The Lebanon) and description of Urothemis edwardsi hulae subspec. nov. (Libellulidae)., Odonatologica1, 1-9, ,

Dumont, H.J., 1991, Odonata of the Levant., Fauna Palaestina, F.D. Por, 297, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem

Jödicke, R., J. Arlt, B. Kunz, W. Lopau & R. Seidenbusch, 2000, The Odonata of Tunisia., International Journal of Odonatology1,41-71, ,

Samraoui, B. & G. de Bélair, 1997, The Guerbes-Senhadja wetland. Part I: An overview., Ecologie, 233-250, ,

Samraoui, B. & Ph. S. Corbet, 2000, The Odonata of Numidia, northeastern Algeria. Part I. Status and distribution., InternationalJournal of Odonatology1, 11-25., ,

Samraoui, B. & R. Menai, 1999, A contribution to the study of Algerian Odonata., International Journal of Odonatology2, 145-165, ,

Samraoui, B., G. De Belair & S. Benyacoub, 1992, A much-threatened lake: Lac des Oiseaux in northeastern Algeria., Environmental Conservation.3., 264-267 + 276., ,

Samraoui, B., S. Benyacoub, S. Mecibah, & H.J. Dumont, 1993, Afrotropical libellulids in the lake district of El Kala, NE Algeria, with a redescrioption of Urothemis e. edwardsi (Selys) and Acisoma panorpoides ascalaphoides (Rambur) (Anisoptera: Libellulidae)., Odonatologica3, 365-372., ,

Schmidt, Er., 1938, Odonaten aus Syrien und Palästina., Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, math.-naturw. Klasse, Abteilung I, 135-150., ,

Schneider, W. & H.J. Dumont, 1997, The dragonflies and damselflies (Insecta: Odonata) of Oman. An updated and annotated checklist., Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 89-110., ,

Schneider, W., 1986, Systematik und Zoogeographie der Odonata der Levante unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zygoptera., Biologie, Institut für Zoologie, 202, 547 figures, 151 maps, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz

Selys Lonchamps, E. de, 1849, Libellulines, Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie., Lucas, P.H., 110-140, , Paris

Waterston, A.R. & A.R. Pittaway, 1991, The Odonata or Dragonflies of Oman and neighbouring territories., Journal of Oman Studies, 131-168., ,

Waterston, A.R., 1985, Insects of Southern Arabia. Odonata from the Yemens and Saudi Arabia., Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 451-472., ,

31 32

Number of Locations: 1

Number of Mature Individuals: 40

% population decline in the past: 80

% population decline in the future: ?

Time period over which the past decline has been measured for applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations):

10 to 15 years

Time period over which the future decline has been measured for applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations):

Severely Fragmented:

Bibliography

Dijkstra, K.D., 2006, Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Britain and Europe., 320, Britisch Wildlife Publishing, Gillingham

Dumont, H.J., 1975, Endemic dragonflies of late pleistocene age of the Hula lake area (northern Israel), with notes on the Calopterygidae of the rivers Jordan (Israel, Jordan) and Litani (The Lebanon) and description of Urothemis edwardsi hulae subspec. nov. (Libellulidae)., Odonatologica1, 1-9, ,

Dumont, H.J., 1991, Odonata of the Levant., Fauna Palaestina, F.D. Por, 297, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem

Jödicke, R., J. Arlt, B. Kunz, W. Lopau & R. Seidenbusch, 2000, The Odonata of Tunisia., International Journal of Odonatology1,41-71, ,

Samraoui, B. & G. de Bélair, 1997, The Guerbes-Senhadja wetland. Part I: An overview., Ecologie, 233-250, ,

Samraoui, B. & Ph. S. Corbet, 2000, The Odonata of Numidia, northeastern Algeria. Part I. Status and distribution., InternationalJournal of Odonatology1, 11-25., ,

Samraoui, B. & R. Menai, 1999, A contribution to the study of Algerian Odonata., International Journal of Odonatology2, 145-165, ,

Samraoui, B., G. De Belair & S. Benyacoub, 1992, A much-threatened lake: Lac des Oiseaux in northeastern Algeria., Environmental Conservation.3., 264-267 + 276., ,

Samraoui, B., S. Benyacoub, S. Mecibah, & H.J. Dumont, 1993, Afrotropical libellulids in the lake district of El Kala, NE Algeria, with a redescrioption of Urothemis e. edwardsi (Selys) and Acisoma panorpoides ascalaphoides (Rambur) (Anisoptera: Libellulidae)., Odonatologica3, 365-372., ,

Schmidt, Er., 1938, Odonaten aus Syrien und Palästina., Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, math.-naturw. Klasse, Abteilung I, 135-150., ,

Schneider, W. & H.J. Dumont, 1997, The dragonflies and damselflies (Insecta: Odonata) of Oman. An updated and annotated checklist., Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 89-110., ,

Schneider, W., 1986, Systematik und Zoogeographie der Odonata der Levante unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zygoptera., Biologie, Institut für Zoologie, 202, 547 figures, 151 maps, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz

Selys Lonchamps, E. de, 1849, Libellulines, Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie., Lucas, P.H., 110-140, , Paris

Waterston, A.R. & A.R. Pittaway, 1991, The Odonata or Dragonflies of Oman and neighbouring territories., Journal of Oman Studies, 131-168., ,

Waterston, A.R., 1985, Insects of Southern Arabia. Odonata from the Yemens and Saudi Arabia., Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 451-472., ,

31 32

Appendix 3. Summary of the IUCN’s Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1

Summary of the five criteria (A–E) used to evaluate if a taxon belongs in a threatened category (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).

Use any of the criteria A–E Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable

A. Population reduction Declines measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations A1 � 90% � 70% � 50%

A2, A3 & A4 � 80% � 50% � 30% Al. Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction are clearly

reversible AND understood AND have ceased, based on and specifying any of the following: (a) direct observation (b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon (c) a decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and/or habitat quality (d) actual or potential levels of exploitation (e) effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.

A2. Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (a) to (e) under Al.

A3. Population reduction projected or suspected to be met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) based on (b) to (e) under Al.

A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population reduction (up to a maximum of 100 years) where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (a) to (e) under Al.

B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) AND/OR B2 (area of occupancy)

B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO) < 100 km² < 5,000 km² < 20,000 km²

B2. Area of occupancy (AOO) < 10 km² < 500 km² < 2,000 km²

AND at least 2 of the following:(a) Severely fragmented, OR

Number of locations = 1 � 5 � 10(b) Continuing decline in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of

habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals.(c) Extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or

subpopulations; (iv) number of mature individuals.C. Small population size and decline Number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000

AND either C1 or C2: C1. An estimated continuing

decline of at least:25% in 3 years or 1

generation20% in 5 years or 2

generations10% in 10 years or 3

generations(up to a max. of 100 years in future)

C2. A continuing decline AND (a) and/or (b):(a i) Number of mature

individuals in each subpopulation:

< 50 < 250 < 1,000

or(a ii) % individuals in one

subpopulation = 90–100% 95–100% 100%

(b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals.D. Very small or restricted population Either:

Number of mature individuals < 50 < 250 D1. < 1,000

AND/OR

Restricted area of occupancyD2. typically: AOO < 20 km² or

number of locations � 5E. Quantitative Analysis Indicating the probability of extinction in the wild to be:

� 50% in 10 years or 3 generations (100 years max.)

� 20% in 20 years or 5 generations (100 years max.) � 10% in 100 years

Summary of the five criteria (A–E) used to evaluate if a taxon belongs in a threatened category (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).

33

IUCN – The Species Survival Commission The Species Suvrvival Commission (SSC) is the largest of IUCN’s six volunteer commissions with a global membership of 8,000 experts. SSC advises IUCN and its members on the wide range of technical and scientific aspects of species conservation and is dedicated to securing a future for biodiversity. SSC has significant input into the international agreements dealing with biodiversity conservation. www.iucn.org/ssc

IUCN – Species Programme The IUCN Species Programme supports the activities of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and individual Specialist Groups, as well as implementing global species conservation initiatives. It is an integral part of the IUCN Secretariat and is managed from IUCN’s international headquarters in Gland, Switzerland. The species Programme includes a number of technical units covering Species Trade and Use, The IUCN Red List, Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (all located in Cambridge, UK), and the Global Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (located n Washington DC, USA). www.iucn.org/species

IUCN - Dragonfly Specialist GroupThe IUCN Dragonfly Specialist Group focuses on the conservation of damselflies, dragonflies and their freshwater habitats. The DSG has a global volunteer network of over 50 expert members across the globe. Main focus of the work is the gathering and dissemination of information on distribution and threats of the nearly 6.000 damselflies and dragonflies. Currently the DSG is working on distribution databases and an assessment of the threat status of all damselflies and dragonflies. The Global Dragonfly Assessment will be an important tool in the conservation of freshwater habitats.

IUCN – Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation The Centre was opened in October 2001 and is located in the offices of the Parque Tecnologico de Andalucia, in Malaga. IUCN has over 179 members in the Mediterranean region, including 15 governments. Its mission is to influence, encourage and assist Mediterranean societies to conserve and use sustainably the natural resources of the region.www.iucn.org/mediterranean

The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Eastern Africa. Compiled by William R.T. Darwall, Kevin G. Smith, Thomas Lowe, Jean-Christophe Vié, 2005

The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. Compiled by Kevin G. Smith and William R.T. Darwall, 2006

The Status and Distribution of Reptiles and Amphibians of the Mediterranean Basin. Compiled by Neil Cox, Janice Chanson and Simon Stuart, 2006

The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Compiled by Helen J. Temple and Andrew Terry, 2007

Overview of the Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea. Compiled by Rachel D. Cavanagh and Claudine Gibson, 2007

The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Southern Africa. Compiled by William R.T. Darwall, Kevin G. Smith, Denis Tweddle and Paul Skelton, 2009

European Red List of Amphibians. Compiled by Helen J. Temple and Neil Cox, 2009

European Red List of Reptiles. Compiled by Neil Cox and Helen J. Temple, 2009

The Status and Distribution of Mediterranean Mammals. Compiled by Helen J. Temple and Annabelle Cuttelod,2009

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™– Regional Assessments

THE IUCN RED LISTOF THREATENED SPECIES ™

IUCN-MEDParque Tecnológico de Andalucia.Marie Curie, 2229590 - Campanillas (Malaga)Phone:: +34 95 202 84 30Fax: +34 95 202 81 45www.iucn.org/mediterraneanE-Mail: [email protected]

Core support to the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean

Cooperation is provided by: